Show and Filter Competence Profiles in «Staff»

Assumptions:

1. Competences are prepared and maintained centrally by HR. HR also prepares Competence Profiles. (works now)
2. OrgUnits are prepared and maintained centrally by HR. (works now)
3. Mapping Competence Profiles and OrgUnits is mostly done centrally by HR. However the should have some flexibility: Superiors may be allowed to assign centrally prepared Competence Profiles to individual employees. Only superiors with the the newly introduced position authority  «Assign Competence Profiles» can assign individual users. (needs its own project: Superiors can assign Competence Profiles)

• Competences are governed by permissions. This is new and please keep it in mind.

1 Initial Problem

Currently users with specific competence can be filtered for accross the records in  Organisation > Competences. However superiors cannot check for Competence Profile fulfillment oft their staffers.

Competences in «Organisation»

2 Conceptual Summary

Superiors get a dedicated tab «Competence Profiles». (new)

Which Profiles are displayed? Those assigned!

1. Orgunits are set up and Positions are specified in a rather granular fashion since competence profiles are assigned to positions. This is done in the global administration by HR centrally, this is not task done by individual teams but centrally. (already works)
2. Competences and Competence Profiles are specified in the global administration. (already works)
3. Competence Profiles are assigned to roles or individual users centrally in the Administration. (already works)

Unterwelt ZURÜCK Button fehlt
Filter soll sein

• Name / Vorname / Login
• Dropdown [leer, 100%, < 100%]

• ZURÜCK Button
• Eventuell generelle Ansicht für Superiors/Admins ohne Competence Recors auch als Übersicht für die Administration von Kompetenzprofilen

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

• Organisation > Competences > (new subtab) Competence Profile

3.2 User Interface Details

3.3 New User Interface Concepts

None.

3.4 Accessibility Implications

{ If the proposal contains potential accessibility issues that are neither covered by existing UI components nor clarified by guidelines, please list them here. For every potential issue please either propose a solution or write down a short risk assessment about potential fallout if there would be no solution for the issue. }

4 Technical Information

{ The maintainer has to provide necessary technical information, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues. }

5 Privacy

{ Please list all personal data that will need to be stored or processed to implement this feature. For each date give a short explanation why it is necessary to use that date. }

6 Security

{ Does the feature include any special security relevant changes, e.g. the introducion of new endpoints or other new possible attack vectors. If yes, please explain these implications and include a commitment to deliver a written security concept as part of the feature development. This concept will need an additional approvement by the JourFixe. }

7 Contact

• Author of the Request: Tödt, Alexandra [atoedt]
• Maintainer: Studer, Martin [mstuder]
• Implementation of the feature is done by: {The maintainer must add the name of the implementing developer.}

8 Funding

If you are interest in funding this feature, please add your name and institution to this list.

• …

9 Discussion

10 Implementation

{ The maintainer has to give a description of the final implementation and add screenshots if possible. }

Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

• {Test case number linked to Testrail} : {test case title}

Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.